SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Articles and Sermons : Ravenhill's School of Thought

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Context

Quote:
"The Christian is of course free from the ceremonial laws and ordinances but is still bound to the moral law."



Not recalling exactely the context where this was spoken in that interview am just wondering if this is a bit too much extrapolation from just a comment.

Could it be that he was only refering to;

Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD:[b]I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts[/b]. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.?

[i]That[/i] moral law?


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/11/12 9:48Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
I'm curious as to the nature of GraftedBranch(es) post. Was he implying that the Tanakh' (OT Scriptures) are irrelevant, or as he attempting to make a distinction between the Old and the New.



I would not suggest that the Old Testament Scritpures are in any way "irrelevant" but misused. Paul said, "The Law is lawful if used lawfully". That is it has it's function and place which in Galatians we are told was a "child conducter to bring us to Christ"

The Value of the OT is that it shows us God's Eternal Purpose in Creating Man. It shows us our origins, our fall, and God's plan of redemption in Types, shadows, figures, and prophecies.

The OT gives us many pictures of Christ such as the Taberncackel, the Passover, the exodus, the wilderness, the Manna, the good land. All these are types of Christ and a picture of our life in Him

But these things are shadows and pictures. Christ is the Reality. When we have the Reality, we can learn from the pictures and shadows so the OT has this value.

The OT also gives us much in the way of understanding Isreal, God's dispensational deallings, eschatology, etc.

But in terms of applicability, We are no longer under the Old Covenant. Christ is the End of the Law for rightousness to everyone who believes. THe Old Covenent is superseeded by the New and any attempt to mix the two is grevious to the Lord Himself. This is the message of Hebrews and Galatians.

We need the revelation of the Spirit to see Christ as the centrality and universality of God's New Testament Economy. When the Lord took Peter and John up on the mountian and there Moses and Elija appeard wtih Christ in glory, Peter wanted to make 3 tents for each of them. But the Lord thundered from the heavens and said, "This is My Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, Hear Him" and suddenly Moses and Elija were gone and only Christ remained.

This is God's economy. It is Christ. Not the Law, Not the prophets. Christ alone. Christ plus nothing. Christ is the fulfillment and the end of the latter two.

We need to see this glorious Christ. We Need our eyes opened to see this One who is God manifested in the flesh, crucified for sin and resurrected in glory to impart Himself into us as the Life giving Spirit to enliven us and to make us sons of God in life and nature and to conform us to His image and to make us partakers of His Glory. This is the Gospel. The Law has nothing to do with it. It is in Christ by the Spirit through faith.

We also need to see that this wonderful glorious Christ is the One who indwells us as our LIfe, our rightousnsess, our holiness, our everything. Paul in Colossians said He was appointed to complete the Word of God which is the revelation of the Mystery... which is "Christ in you, the Hope of Glory"

Graftedbranch


 2005/11/12 9:52Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
Not recalling exactely the context where this was spoken in that interview am just wondering if this is a bit too much extrapolation from just a comment.



Ravenhill's context as I recall was simply speaking of the Need for holiness. But his words reflect the opinion of many who find it obhorant to suggest the Christian is free from the obligation to "keep the law".

The natural thought is, "If the Christian is "free from the Law" then surely he will just live as he pleases and live a life of fleshly indulgence"

This thought reflects a natural view and neglects the Person of Christ HImself who is holiness, rightousness and every positive virtue.

When we believe into the Lord Jesus Christ there is more than just a legal transaction of justification and forgiveness. That is the basis for regeneration and sanctification.

Regeneration brings the Life of Christ into us and all He is. The Spirit regenerates us and our dead spirit is made alive. There comes into us a Life which was not there before and this LIfe has its issue, It's desires, It's Ways, IT's attributes which is nothing less than the Lord HImself.

Not only that but according to Romans 8:29 Because those whom He forknew He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son that He might be the First Born among many brothers"

So salvation and regeneration brings us into the process whereby the Spirit HImself from within us begins His work to conform us to the Image of the First Born Son. This process does not leave us in our natural condition but renews us, elightens us, sanctifies us, and transforms us from within.

So we do not "take up the Law" but rather regeneration brings in the Spirit who creates in us a Love for Christ, a desire to Know HIm, to follow Him and as we see the beauty of Christ we desire and seek to be transformed into His image. We are taken up with a Person, not with a set of rules. And this Person is the Living Christ, not dead letters applied to our flesh which only brings in defeat and death.

The Christian Life according to Romans 8 is not lived by the Law in the energy of our natural being but is lived in faith by the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

This is the Christian Life and this is Christian Victory and Holiness. It is the Living Christ formed in us and manifesting Himself in us.

IN Galatians 2:21-22 Paul says, "Through Law I died to Law... It is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me and the Life I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me.

This and this alone is the Christian Life.

Graftedbranch

 2005/11/12 10:28Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

All well and good but I do not think in any form or fashion that Ravenhill would be advocating such a thing.

Quote:
Ravenhill's context as I recall was simply speaking of the Need for holiness. But his words reflect the opinion of many who find it obhorant to suggest the Christian is free from the obligation to "keep the law".



Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Have you read or listened to much beyond this of Leonard Ravenhill? I believe you are reading far too much into that comment.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/11/12 11:23Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re: Ravenhill and the gospel

Quote:
Have you read or listened to much beyond this of Leonard Ravenhill? I believe you are reading far too much into that comment.



Hebrews 2:10,11 - For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in leading many sons to glory, to make the Author of thier salvation perfect in all things. For both He who sanctifies (Christ) and those who are being sanctified (us - who are redeemed) are all of One (Father) for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brothers"

Romans 8: 15,16,17a - For you have not recieved a spirit of slavery brining you into fear again, but you have recieved a Spirit of sonship in which we cry Abba Father! The Spirit HImself witnesses with our spirit that we are children of God. And if Children, heirs also...

RcV

___________________________________________________________________

I have heard Ravenhill personally in the late 70s as well as listened to several on line Sermons. I believe at one time I read a book by him on revival.

I believe his background is pentecostal holiness. He also has a very "arminian" theology and believes a person can lose his salvation which alone should tell you that he has a measure of "legalism" and does not have a full grasp on the New Covenant, regeneration and it's permenancy or even it's nature. He certianly preached the need for regeneration and the New Birth but his definition of what that is exactly is in question.

He emphasises in a very Old Testament sense the relationship of the worshiping creature to his Creator but I don't find much concerning the relationship of the redeemed and regenerated child of God to his Father. He is about rightousness, holiness and worship of God. Good things but the heart of the New Testament is that in Christ we are brought into the divine Sonship and share His life and nature through regeneration and the New Birth to be children of God (John 1:12,13). The Gospel does not merely restore the creature/Creator relationship but establishes the organic relationship of Father/children which is in LIfe, not just a legal standing (Romans 8:15,16).

The gospel does not just reveal to us the glory of God that we may bow down and worship God, It brings us into the Divine Sonship to be partakers of His Glory and to live and express God as the God of Glory. The Glory of God is not outside of us for us to admire and worship. The Glory of God is God Himself within our regenerated spirit as our indwelling LIfe and as we live by God in Christ and llve God, He is glorifed in the church.

God never commanded Adam to fall down and worship Him. Rather he put him before the Tree of Life and said, "freely eat". God's goal is not pets for his amusement, nor creatures to be worshiped by. He has this in the angels. His goal is many sons in the Image of the Firstborn Son in resurrection with His very life and nature to be His corporate expression on the Earth, to bear His testimony and to exercise His dominion over His enemies. This was God's goal in creation and His goal in redemption according to the Bible. And this is the consumation of the Bible as the New Jeruselem in the New Earth.

I don't find these things in Ravenhills preaching or teaching.

Graftedbranch





 2005/11/13 11:44Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Ravenhill

Quote:
I believe his background is pentecostal holiness. He also has a very "arminian" theology and believes a person can lose his salvation which alone should tell you that he has a measure of "legalism" and does not have a full grasp on the New Covenant, regeneration and it's permenancy or even it's nature. He certianly preached the need for regeneration and the New Birth but his definition of what that is exactly is in question.



With all due respect GB have found Leonard Ravenhill to be the epiphany of a man who's soul was totally given over to the Lord despite whatever constructs of theology you might want to crowd him under or into. We have had more than a few discussions on the whole realm of Armenian\Calvin items if you care to go back through them all. His particular leanings tell me no such thing.

So for you to come in here unknown and start making comments of this sort is unwelcome. Why should we believe that you have a "full grasp" more so then he? Just because you say so or are adept at moving through the scriptures?

This is a forum comprised of many different believers at all stages of their walk with different backgrounds and cultures. If you have come to set us all straight you have come with the wrong approach.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/11/13 14:25Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 39795
Canada

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
I believe his background is pentecostal holiness. He also has a very "arminian" theology and believes a person can lose his salvation which alone should tell you that he has a measure of "legalism" and does not have a full grasp on the New Covenant, regeneration and it's permenancy or even it's nature. He certianly preached the need for regeneration and the New Birth but his definition of what that is exactly is in question.


Brother your questioning of this man's ministry is quite sad. Have you the fruit of this man and the experience of this man with God? I think you are making very broad terms and quite possibly trying to ruin a man's ministry with some words that have not been weighed properly in the balance. If you want to discuss the difference between the 2 convenants and speak of a particular aspect of that then I would suggest you post a new thread doing that specifically and do a theological discussion on that instead of trying to wrap ravenhill into it.

Quote:
This is a forum comprised of many different believers at all stages of their walk with different backgrounds and cultures. If you have come to set us all straight you have come with the wrong approach.


I think brohter Mike's statement is something that has to be highlighted here. This is a place for searching for the truth but not a place for people to at all times assume themselves as teachers. I appreciate your zealousness on this topic but you do have to come into it with more of an humble point of view. Do you have your own website? pulpit? ministry? perhaps those are better outlets to expouse your specific viewpoints.

I am not trying to say that discussions like this have to stop but the primarly method and purpose of these forums is [b]edification[/b] of the saints. When I watch or listen to ravenhill I am more blessed then anything else, He has stirred me onto personal relationship with Christ more then most men. That is the proper needful emphasis.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2005/11/13 16:43Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
Brother your questioning of this man's ministry is quite sad. Have you the fruit of this man and the experience of this man with God? I think you are making very broad terms and quite possibly trying to ruin a man's ministry with some words that have not been weighed properly in the balance.



I mean no disrespect to any who esteem brother Ravenhill. But, according to the title of this thread it is concerning "Ravenhill's School of thought"

It seems that the reaction to my post is purely on the grounds that I have questioned his teaching and it seems this is unacceptable. No one addressed any of the points made which would seem to be the scriptural response of those who love the Lord and seek the truth. "Let God be true though every man a liar".

I think when we elevate anyone above the scriptures and refuse to consider their teaching in light of it we are on the wrong ground.

I do not critize His person nor the fruit of his ministry but in keeping with this thread, I question his postion on certian things in light of the revelation of Scritpure and seek to understand his 'school of thought"

I don't believe my post is outside of this guidline. Nor is my 'critique" one of condemnation or of impuning his ministry. But rather we should seek to "seach the scriptures to see if these things be so"

But I will say that when we exalt a person we can even Idolize them. And this becomes evident if anyone "touches them". We react and take it personally.

I like Ravenhill and appreciate His spirit and His ministry and as I said, I believe the Lord has used him greatly.

I have been a belvier for 30 years, am a Bible school graduate (Evangelical Institute of Greenville, SC) and have followed the Lord for 30 years.

And I am a member of the local church in my city and am a functioning member of the body of Christ. I might add that I am not a new believer and have my measure of the experiences of Christ, the cross, and of the Christian Life and not without my measure of 'fruit'. And find the Lord more than willing to open up His Word even to those who are not neccesarrily the 'gifted evangelist". I am not an extrodinary Christian but I believe I am a normal one accoding to the New Testament. That is one who loves Christ, is growing in grace and in the knowlege of the Lord Jesus Christ, and has a level of maturity according to my years in Christ. I worship God in spirit, glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in my flesh.

AS such and as a fellow partaker of the Grace of Life and of the Lord Jesus Christ, as Paul says, "we believe, therefore we speak".

I will also add that I attended the Bible School of Joseph Carroll, author of "How to Worship Jesus Christ" and considered him to be of all men the most godly and the most spiritual. He was a missionary to missionaries in the far east, a "deeper life" teacher and ministered to the spiritual life of some of the great servants of Christ. He labored with A.W. Tozer, was a frequent speaker at the Keswick convention, a friend of Martin Lloyd Jones, and I sat for two years daily under his ministry. Yet after many years the Lord showed me he just was not right on some things. As I went on I began to realize that He, Tozer, and Lloyd Jones, and Watchman Nee whom I also admired were not in aggrement on many things, yet I had to admit that they each had fruitful ministries and were full of Christ. Finally I came to the Lord and realized that the Lord Himself is the only final source of Truth and the Scritpures the only authority. When I came to the Lord in this way, the scritpures came alive and I began to live unto Him and not unto any man or his teaching. Yet I appreciate the Lords work and His teaching in all of them and gain from them.

So when I say we can idolize a person, I speak from experience. We can elevate someone above the Lord Himself and their teaching or preaching above the scritpures. But they are men as we are and earthen vessels. And we follow the Living Christ who is within us, not any man. None the less we should hold those who suffer and preach and teach and pour out their lives for Christ and the church in high regard and not esteem them lightly so I respect those who admire Ravenhill. He is worthy of respect.

Graftedbranch.

 2005/11/13 17:51Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Well let's try this again:

Quote:
I have heard Ravenhill personally in the late 70s as well as listened to several on line Sermons. I believe at one time I read a book by him on revival.



With that as a backdrop you would expect us to follow your examination as being anything other than what appears to be a cursory, practically off the cuff assessment, compared with more than a few here who have read and listened to the man and find that his theology likely would blur the lines on just this one aspect, which is not essential in the first place and was addressed earlier in the thread.

Quote:
It seems that the reaction to my post is purely on the grounds that I have questioned his teaching and it seems this is unacceptable. No one addressed any of the points made which seems to be the scritpural response of those who seek the truth.

That would be a faulty perception if part of it wasn't true. Will give you that, but for different reasons. One is that when newer people come in here and start out with a particular air of having all the answers without formally introducing themselves, getting a feel for the site and interacting, getting to know other believers, it can put us a bit on the defensive. Yes, we love Len for a number of reasons but if he were alive and thought we saw in him anything more than was what due him ... Would be sure a tongue lashing would be in quick order, kind of against everything he ever expressed. So, no.
Quote:
But I will say that when we exalt a person we can even Idolize them. And this becomes evident if anyone "touches them". We react and take it personally.


Again, no. The umbrage is in a certain rudeness to be blunt about it. There is a sense of family here and that is not in any fashion inclusive\exclusive but just what we have experienced from time to time here... Some will come with an agenda whether they recognize it or not, a teaching, a certain train of thought and before even getting their feet wet are off and running.
Quote:
AS such and as a fellow partaker of the Grace of Life and of the Lord Jesus Christ, I speak.


Don't know how to put this nicely but that is the problem sir.

Misunderstandings abound and it often time takes some time to get things expressed and clarified. Hope you might take some time to explore a bit more, read some of the preceding discussions around even this particular issue, it has been brought up quite often.

A couple of messages that might interest you:

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6072&forum=35#45127]Authority[/url] [i]By Stephen Kaung[/i]



_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/11/13 19:36Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
With that as a backdrop you would expect us to follow your examination as being anything other than what appears to be a cursory, practically off the cuff assessment, compared with more than a few here who have read and listened to the man and find that his theology likely would blur the lines on just this one aspect, which is not essential in the first place and was addressed earlier in the thread.



I appreciate your response and acknowlege that what you say is very valid. In a forum such as this it is easy just to come in and start.

And I will admit that my writing is "off the cuff" however it is not superficial nor without a long consideration of what is said. I spent an afternoon listening to Ravenhill two weeks ago because a new brother in the church was speaking of him highly and I wanted to listen to regain an appreciation for what He preached and where he was comming from. And by the way I said nothing negative to this brother about Ravenhill.

On the other hand, I find it sometimes helpful to toss out a few hand granades just to see what happens and in this way I get a feel for the realtiy of things and where others are comming from.. It is effective. And in fact it brings about dialoge which is profitable such as I believe this is.

I apoligize if I acted in a way which is offensive. One thing I remember Ravenhill saying in 1975 I believe, was that if he were invited to the Whitehouse and placed under ristiction as to what he could say to the president, he would go and restrain himself. But then, at the end he would say, "Let us Pray... " meaning in his prayer he would say all the things he felt he was burdoned to say.

As to Stephen Kaung, I am in the Stream of the Lord's recovery.

Graftedbranch



 2005/11/13 19:50Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy